ArticleClinical oral investigations2024
Five-year survival of class II restorations with and without base bulk-fill composite: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interfacial gap formation of class II composite restorations with proximal box elevation using bulk-fill materials: a micro-CT study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The effect of contouring instruments on immediate quality and porosity of direct restorations.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to determine the survival of class II composite restorations in premolars and molars with and without base bulk-fill composite in general dental practice. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe collected data from the electronic patient files of the Public Dental Services in the City of Oulu, Finland. The timespan of data collection was from August 15th, 2002, to August 9th, 2018. The data consisted of class II composite restorations both with and without base bulk-fill composite. We compared the survival of these restorations using Kaplan-Meier survival curves, the log-rank test, survival rates, and the Wilcoxon signed ranks test.
resultsWe observed 297 restorations in 96 patients. The five-year survival rates for restorations with and without base bulk-fill composite were comparable in premolars (77.5% and 77.4%, respectively) but different in molars (69.9% and 57.8%, respectively, p = 0.069). In molars, the restorations with base bulk-fill composite exhibited a higher survival rate in 14 patients, whereas in 11 patients the restorations without base bulk-fill composites exhibited a higher survival rate. In 24 patients the survival rates were similar for restorations with and without the base bulk-fill composite (p = 0.246).
conclusionsThe restorations with and without base bulk-fill composite had similar longevity. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Base bulk-fill composites are safe to use in general practice due to their similar survival rates compared to conventional composites.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.